Posted on March 12, 2012 by David Silverman

MARCH MADNESS: An Unusual Case of Reverse Confusion

As we wrote about last year around this time, MARCH MADNESS is a term that is protected by trademark law.  It is owned by the March Madness Athletic Association (MMAA), a joint venture between the NCAA and the Illinois High School Athletic Association (IHSA).   The IHSA was actually first to begin using this mark to describe its high school basketball tournament in the 1940s. 

Brent Musburger brought MARCH MADNESS to public attention in using that term to describe the NCAA college basketball tournament, during which many hearts are broken each year....if you are lucky enough to have a team that made it this far. (Northwestern came this close to its first NCAA appearance.)

Normally, this would be a case of so-called "reverse confusion," in which the junior user of a mark (here, the NCAA) is so much bigger than the senior user of the mark (the IHSA) that the public thinks the mark belongs to the junior user.  In the typical reverse confusion case, the senior user can stop the junior user from using the mark.  But that did not happen here.  Why? 

In the typical reverse confusion case, the junior user adopts the senior user's mark and that can be stopped by the senior user.  But here, the public began using MARCH MADNESS to refer to the NCAA tournament before the NCAA began using the term itself.  The federal court that heard this trademark infringement action ruled that the IHSA could not stop the NCAA from using MARCH MADNESS because that term had entered the public domain as a nickname for the NCAA tournament before the NCAA adopted the mark itself.  Accordingly, the court held that the mark was subject to dual use by both NCAA and IHSA, who now own it jointly through the MMAA.

What does this mean for broadcasters?  It means your talent can discuss MARCH MADNESS all they like without fear of reprisal, so long as the term is not used to sell or promote goods or services.  The NCAA may not be as aggressive in protecting MARCH MADNESS as the NFL is in protecting SUPER BOWL, but the unauthorized commercial use of either term is prohibited by trademark law.  This means no "March Madness Sales" without authorization from the MMAA, which owns the trademark and related marketing rights to MARCH MADNESS.

 
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted on January 19, 2012 by David Silverman

Is Super Bowl Protected by Trademark or Copyright Law? Try Both.

One of the questions we commonly get from broadcasters and others around this time of year is whether and/or how they can use the term SUPER BOWL.  Some refer to it as a trademark while others call it a copyright.  Who is right...and how can it be used?  The term SUPER BOWL is a registered trademark owned by the National Football League. We previously discussed this issue in 2009, 2010 and 2011. 

Actually, the NFL owns at least eight trademark registrations containing the words SUPER BOWL, as well trademark registrations for the terms PRO BOWL and even SUPER SUNDAY.  Aside from these trademark registrations, the NFL also owns the copyright to the telecast of the game itself.  You may have heard that in past years, the NFL tried to stop Super Bowl parties shown on large TV screens.  This was an enforcement of the NFL's copyright in the game.  Now, the NFL apparently no longer tries to stop Super Bowl parties unless the proprietor charges admission to see the game.  Again, this is a copyright issue.  But what do these rights mean for a broadcaster who wants to run a Super Bowl promotion or an advertiser who wants to run a campaign involving the Big Game?

 

When it comes to use of the trademarked term SUPER BOWL, the NFL will take action against third party attempts to use that term in a commercial sense, in other words, to sell goods and services using the term SUPER BOWL in advertising.  This is because commercial sponsors pay the NFL to be the official car or soft drink or whatever of the SUPER BOWL.  Any unauthorized use of that term in advertising could imply a false sponsorship or affiliation with the NFL.

So, what is permitted?  It is fine to use the term SUPER BOWL in news stories about the game and in conversations about the game.  There is a trademark concept called "nominative fair use" that allows others to use a trademarked term when there is simply no better way to refer to it.  But that concept does not extend to commercial use of the term. 

In summary, you can discuss the Super Bowl and do news stories about the Super Bowl, all while referring to it as the Super Bowl.  But any commercials or promotional announcements should avoid use of that trademarked term.  It is OK for commercials to refer to it as the "Big Game" or any other term that does not include the words "Super Bowl" or "Super Sunday."

And go ahead and have that TV Super Bowl party you were planning.  You will not be violating any copyright enforced by the NFL so long as you do not charge admission to see the game.  By contrast, selling food and drink at the venue is permitted.  In fact, that is pretty much what every bar in the US will be doing on Super Sunday.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on July 8, 2011 by David Silverman

FCC Confirms $4000 Fine For Televising Video News Release Without Sponsorship ID

 

The FCC has issued a Forfeiture Order, confirming a $4000 fine levied against a Minneapolis TV station for airing a video news release ("VNR") without sponsorship identification.  This case was previously discussed in our March 25th blog entry, when the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") against the station for this violation.  The primary lesson to be learned from this decision is that video supplied for free may require sponsorship ID if furnished for the purpose of identifying a product or furthering a sponsor's message beyond any independent (i.e., newsworthy) reason a station has for airing it.

In arguing against the NAL, the station put forth several arguments, all of which were rejected by the FCC.  The station argued that its use of a video supplied by General Motors for a story about the popularity of convertibles in the summer was equivalent to use of a company press release, which the FCC has found acceptable in the past.  But the FCC said that use of a press release without sponsorship ID is permitted only if references to products or brand names are "transient or fleeting."  Here, by contrast, the FCC found the identification of GM cars to be "disproportionate to the subject matter of the news report."

The station also argued that it paid its parent network for the video.  While the FCC acknowleged that station payment for video usually indicates an independent motive for airing it, the FCC rejected that argument here, finding that payments between the station and its network were "little more than intercompany accounting ledger entries."  Furthermore, the network did not pay for the video, which was received unsolicited.

The Commission reaffirmed its earlier finding that this forfeiture does not violate the station's First Amendment rights or the anti-censorship provisions of the Communications Act.  Rather, the Commission noted that the sponsorship identification rules are merely disclosure requirements that do not restrict speech in any way.

This decision reinforces the need for TV stations to be aware of commercially supplied videos, whether or not they are supplied with or in exchange for money or any other consideration.  If a station's use of such video contains anything more than "transient or fleeting" images of commercial products, sponsorship identification may well be required.  In this case, the station could have complied merely by providing a visual credit stating "Video provided by General Motors."  RTNDA guidelines on the use of VNRs can be found here. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on August 4, 2008 by David Oxenford

Remember the "Olympics" are Trademarked - Advertisers Beware

Last week, an article in the Wall Street Journal focused on the enforcement of the trademark that the United States Olympic Committee has in the word "Olympics."  Thus, anyone who wants to call some sort of competition an "Olympic" contest, or anyone who uses any derivation of that word, is asking for potential issues should the USOC get word of that use.  What the article did not address was the issue that this raises for broadcasters and advertisers.  Just as the trademarked term "Super Bowl" can cause problems for companies that use it in advertisements without permission of the NFL, advertisers should refrain from the use of the term Olympics in connection with promoting their products.   Companies have paid huge rights fees to get the exclusive rights to use the Olympics in their advertising campaigns, usually getting exclusive rights in a particular product category.  These companies and the Olympic committee do not like to see local advertisers appropriating the use of the Olympics name (or the interlocking circles that comprise their symbol) in someone else's ad.  So, just as electronic stores promote the sale of their big screen TVs before the Super Bowl by talking about the "Big Game" rather than using the trademarked phrase, advertisers must use care and avoid any trademark infringement by trying to tie their products to the Olympics during this upcoming event. 
Tags: , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link
 
<--!
-->